At $30,000 per person it would have been cheaper to use a trampoline and you'd have gotten the same photographic effects.

piratekris

$30,000 a person? Get your info right. The cost of Zero G is $4900 a person.

Bad Habit

Then the price has dropped seriously since they first started offering the package in 1990 when I last checked.

Either way, you completely missed the entire point of my post.Clueless much?

piratekris

Yeah..... I don't think Zero G was offering anything in 1990... Though I understand your point, it annoys me when people get facts wrong.

I wouldn't say I'm clueless, I think the whole point of Kate Upton in 'space' is because we are on the brink of commercializing space tourism. With people like Zero G, and Virgin Galactic we are on our way to being able to buy a ticket to space (that's more reasonable than going to the Russians). I don't think SI was just interested in seeing Kate Upton's boobs float, but had a bigger message.

Plus if that's the way you think, then why would SI travel to any of their expensive locations?? I can guarantee you that trip to Antarctica was WAY more expensive than a Zero G flight.

Bad Habit

Boy, are you reading a LOT into photos of a girl in a bikini.

And while I am certain the company "Zero-G" did not exist in the 90's , it doesn't change the fact that this technique has been used since the 50's to train astronauts.This service was also offered to private industries [usually aerospace contractors who don't own their own C-130s] for industrial trials and testing when, low and behold, someone else got the bright idea to offer this service to the general public for recreational purposes.

This was not cheap then as I DID have the opportunity to ride one of these for work purposes when I was employed by Northrup in the early 80's.The part of the tab for just my body being on the flight to assist in conducting equipment testing was $30,000.

I am not denying that prices have plummeted since then, I personally have not checked on it recently, but my personal experience, however out of date, does not mitigate the fact that the EXACT SAME photographic effects caused by the EXACT SAME laws of physics [freefall] could be achieved for a FRACTION OF THE COST of putting an entire photographic crew on the "Vomit Comet" for a few bouncing tittie pix.

Dano

Bring her back to Earth and prepare the buffet line of double bacon cheeseburgers. The only thing fleshed out on that poor gal are the boobs. The rest is Ethopian.

Richelle Howes

Nip slip....if they would have put her in bikinis that actually FIT her tits....that wouldn't have happened XD hah!

EMS

I wish George Lucas had seen that before he filmed Star Wars: A New Hope - he had Carrie Fisher bind her breasts because "Breasts don't bounce in space." If he'd seen this a few decades ago, she'd have been in the gold bikini for all three movies....

vadersapp

What? How does that make sense? Every scene in that entire series of film either takes place on the ground of some planet or in a spaceship with artificial gravity. There is not a single instance of zero-G in the entire series of films apart from fighter battles (even the interiors of which apparently have artifical gravity, too, considering Luke wear's no harness but doesn't float around every time he adjusts the controls. In other words, every single moment of those films that's not focused on a ship battle in orbit takes place in a weighted environment. In what situation are boobs supposed to be bounceless, then?

Also, incidentally, he's a moron because, if anything, boobs bounce more in space (assuming he means Zero-G) because they do not settle as quickly without gravity pulling them down to a resting position

fdafda

quit ruining it for him, he just wants to see karrie fisher's breasts in tight straps(although why? she was not that hot even back then)

Guest

of course you'd vomit. girls are icky

Matty Spinny

isnt anyone else wondering why theres jizz particles floating around in that second to last one?